Portrait of a 47% moocher

[Loren Pechtel]

A middle class family used to be able to get by just fine on one income. I know...I grew up in just such a family. My father never went to college, but wound up in a management position that allowed us to afford a nice house on the water with a boat. Mom went to college but didn't need to work, so she stayed home until us kids were old enough, and then (after a few classes to get back up to speed) went back to work in health care. All three kids went to college, and nobody graduated with student loan debt.


Fast forward until today, and it would be difficult to replicate that sort of life with one income no matter which spouse was working.

It would be effectively impossible to replicate a 60s lifestyle--because our standards are much higher now than then. An awful lot of 60s level products are nowhere near modern standards.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Back in the 1950's and 60's most married women did not work.

Families were supported by one worker working 40 hours a week.

Practically no businesses were open on Sundays.

This is when the rich paid much more taxes. They paid more income taxes and they paid more capital gains taxes.

Ronald Reagan comes in and starts to massively reduce the taxes on the rich.

It has been down hill for most ever since.

If you hate capitalism so much, why don't you move to North Korea with all the other communists?

Why do you hate our freedom? [/conservolibertarian]

Untermensche, I hope that you do not think that the comments by Conservative Republican Underseer reflect in any way upon libertarians. He's still angry that Ron Paul supporters refused to vote for Romney thereby "costing" Underseer's favorite candidate the election.

 

[Derec]

It would be effectively impossible to replicate a 60s lifestyle--because our standards are much higher now than then. An awful lot of 60s level products are nowhere near modern standards.

Good point. People expect so much more these days. Internet access, cell service (with its own internet service), electronic gadgets everywhere, including cars, which makes them heavier and necessitates more horsepower, bigger cars, bigger houses etc.

 

[Ford]

A middle class family used to be able to get by just fine on one income. I know...I grew up in just such a family. My father never went to college, but wound up in a management position that allowed us to afford a nice house on the water with a boat. Mom went to college but didn't need to work, so she stayed home until us kids were old enough, and then (after a few classes to get back up to speed) went back to work in health care. All three kids went to college, and nobody graduated with student loan debt.


Fast forward until today, and it would be difficult to replicate that sort of life with one income no matter which spouse was working.

It would be effectively impossible to replicate a 60s lifestyle--because our standards are much higher now than then. An awful lot of 60s level products are nowhere near modern standards.

Again, it has nothing to do with replicating the 60s.


Or the 50s.


Or an idyllic time when housewives were baking cakes while wearing pearls.



We're talking about the ability of a middle class family to make a living wage.

 

[untermensche]

Back in the 1950's and 60's most married women did not work.

Families were supported by one worker working 40 hours a week.

Practically no businesses were open on Sundays.

This is when the rich paid much more taxes. They paid more income taxes and they paid more capital gains taxes.

Ronald Reagan comes in and starts to massively reduce the taxes on the rich.

It has been down hill for most ever since.

Reality:

The really poor were off the radar then. They were either black or outside the US.

That hasn't changed.

But what has changed is the earning power of the American worker.

Now two workers can't earn what only one earned not very long ago.

The reverse of progress.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would be effectively impossible to replicate a 60s lifestyle--because our standards are much higher now than then. An awful lot of 60s level products are nowhere near modern standards.

Good point. People expect so much more these days. Internet access, cell service (with its own internet service), electronic gadgets everywhere, including cars, which makes them heavier and necessitates more horsepower, bigger cars, bigger houses etc.

While true this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Rather, you can't get 60s level medical care--anyone offering it would be guilty of malpractice. The only way you can get 60s level safety in a car is to buy a 60s car--you can't build something new with the inferior safety systems of the 60s. The last time I replaced the water heater the simple old pilot light was replaced with an electronic ignition system--code mandated, not just a fancy.

- - - Updated - - -

Reality:

The really poor were off the radar then. They were either black or outside the US.

That hasn't changed.

But what has changed is the earning power of the American worker.

Now two workers can't earn what only one earned not very long ago.

The reverse of progress.

You miss my point--you're comparing apples to watermelons and complaining that you can't get the same size.

The old lifestyle you dream of was pretty poor by modern standards.

 

[NobleSavage]

I grew up middle class. My mother never 'worked' till we kids were pretty much grown, and then it was not out of necessity.

People don't remember how it used to be.
In the post war years jobs were fairly plentiful, and most people with a high school education could buy a house, raise a family, take an annual vacation and put the kids through school on a single, 40h/week job.
Today you generally need college and two incomes, or >40h/week to pull this off, and you can't even get into college without taking out a loan.

A big part of this is international competition. We were in a wonderful little bubble in the post war years.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It would be effectively impossible to replicate a 60s lifestyle--because our standards are much higher now than then. An awful lot of 60s level products are nowhere near modern standards.

Good point. People expect so much more these days. Internet access, cell service (with its own internet service), electronic gadgets everywhere, including cars, which makes them heavier and necessitates more horsepower, bigger cars, bigger houses etc.

People want more because they are told they want more. 80% of the crap my TV can do is utterly useless to me. All the crap they're putting into new vehicles, I have the same opinion of. People buy twice as much house as they need because unless you have something custom built, that's all they build for the most part.
Further, while safety does add cost to many of our products and services, manufacturing of those products is a lot leaner than it was in the sixties.

Who wants to watch a movie on their phone? I mean really.

 

[dismal]

People want more because they are told they want more.

Um, OK, you don't want more.

Please send me your laptop and car.

 

[untermensche]

You miss my point--you're comparing apples to watermelons and complaining that you can't get the same size.

The old lifestyle you dream of was pretty poor by modern standards.

Bullshit!!

It was pretty good for many workers. One worker could support a family and a household.

Yes, it was worse for minorities and women, but for people with a job it was better.

Fewer hours and a greater ability to survive.

 

[Derec]

Bullshit!!
It was pretty good for many workers. One worker could support a family and a household.

His point is that you could still do that if you wanted to approximate the lifestyle those workers had in the 60s. Smaller dwellings, no air-con, one car per family (and as base a model as you can find), a simple TV and no cable/satelite, no electronic gadgets or Internet.

 

[ksen]

Too bad improving technology doesn't make better things cheaper.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Too bad improving technology doesn't make better things cheaper.

You are talking on a debate board that allows you to communicate with anybody around the world in seconds for free.

 

[Ford]

Good point. People expect so much more these days. Internet access, cell service (with its own internet service), electronic gadgets everywhere, including cars, which makes them heavier and necessitates more horsepower, bigger cars, bigger houses etc.

While true this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Rather, you can't get 60s level medical care--anyone offering it would be guilty of malpractice. The only way you can get 60s level safety in a car is to buy a 60s car--you can't build something new with the inferior safety systems of the 60s. The last time I replaced the water heater the simple old pilot light was replaced with an electronic ignition system--code mandated, not just a fancy.

- - - Updated - - -

Reality:

The really poor were off the radar then. They were either black or outside the US.

That hasn't changed.

But what has changed is the earning power of the American worker.

Now two workers can't earn what only one earned not very long ago.

The reverse of progress.

You miss my point--you're comparing apples to watermelons and complaining that you can't get the same size.

The old lifestyle you dream of was pretty poor by modern standards.

Speaking of missing the point...


Wind the clock back another 50 years. The sort of lifestyle lived by the middle class in the 60s would seem unimaginably luxurious to folks in the '10s. Everyone has a car? Indoor plumbing? A telephone? And what's this magic box in the living room that plays motion pictures with sound? Luxury, I tell ya...luxury!



Yet again, this unimaginably luxurious lifestyle was within reach of a middle class family with one income. Yes, cars, telephones, medical care and other things are more advanced than they were 50 years ago, but the same was true in the 60s. The problem is not that we've got expensive gadgets, but that wages haven't kept pace with inflation.


If we're comparing fruit, then it is apples to apples...just nowadays you need to work twice as hard to afford one.

 

[ksen]

Too bad improving technology doesn't make better things cheaper.

You are talking on a debate board that allows you to communicate with anybody around the world in seconds for free.

According to some people this device is part of what makes people need 3 or 4 jobs to try to make ends meet.

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit!!
It was pretty good for many workers. One worker could support a family and a household.

His point is that you could still do that if you wanted to approximate the lifestyle those workers had in the 60s. Smaller dwellings, no air-con, one car per family (and as base a model as you can find), a simple TV and no cable/satelite, no electronic gadgets or Internet.

People are living in the same houses they lived in the 1950's and 60's.

We didn't destroy all the houses and build new ones for everybody.

Yes the affluent live in larger houses, so if you look at averages it looks like everybody is living larger.

And in the 60's people lived large. It was the space age.

People today are not needing two full time workers in the family because they are living so much better.

They need it because the cost of living has risen faster than wages and benefits. Both factors favor the very rich and strengthen the oligarchy.

 

[untermensche]

You are talking on a debate board that allows you to communicate with anybody around the world in seconds for free.

According to some people this device is part of what makes people need 3 or 4 jobs to try to make ends meet.

If computers existed in the 1960's most homes would have had one, and it wouldn't have caused another person to have to go to work.

The real earning power of white males was much higher than it is now. Mostly because of the strength of unions that helped wages keep pace with a rising cost of living.

Yes, blacks and women were paid less, but that didn't put money into white male workers pockets. It was profit.

 

[Derec]

People want more because they are told they want more.

And they have to listen and obey? Bullshit, people want more because, all things considered, more is better.

80% of the crap my TV can do is utterly useless to me.

Well given how many channels there are even 20% would keep you glued to the tube. In any case, you have the option to get rid of cable if you so choose.

All the crap they're putting into new vehicles, I have the same opinion of.

Then get an old vehicle, or a base model of a late model. But base models are not big sellers, because people do want their gadgets.
However, many things they put in newer vehicles compared to 1960s are safety related, and not frivolous. But people also want gizmos that are not necessary, nut nice to have. What's wrong with that?

People buy twice as much house as they need because unless you have something custom built, that's all they build for the most part.

Then buy a preexisting home. Plenty of homes that were built decades ago and are still in good lick. Or a condo/townhouse if all detached houses being built recently are too big for you.

Further, while safety does add cost to many of our products and services, manufacturing of those products is a lot leaner than it was in the sixties.

But still the point is that people are, for the most part, enjoying a better lifestyle.

Who wants to watch a movie on their phone? I mean really.

Not the ideal thing. But TVs common in those days were hardly bigger than a laptop screen (many were smaller) and you sat much further back from them. So the apparent size wasn't bigger than a 4" phone screen held in your hand. And the picture quality is much better. So I'd much rather watch a movie on a smart phone than on a 1960s TV.

 

[Derec]

If computers existed in the 1960's most homes would have had one, and it wouldn't have caused another person to have to go to work.

Computers existed in those days.

 

[untermensche]

If computers existed in the 1960's most homes would have had one, and it wouldn't have caused another person to have to go to work.

Computers existed in those days.

And if those were the only computers that existed now nobody would have one.

The point was that the computer or the cell phone is not why people have to work so much harder now.

It's simple.

The cost of living has risen faster than wages and benefits for most people.

Capitalism is failing most but because it is so good for a few it remains.